Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: gordon451
Date: September 25, 2011 09:00PM

I've tried to enable FIPS in KM 1.6.0b2.

The first thing I did was a little research. I found Configuring Firefox for FIPS 140-2 which is an old page, but FF doesn't say how old. sleepy smiley

So I followed instructions, gave myself a master password, disabled SSL3 (Privacy & Security>Encryption>>Encrypted Transmission), then Privacy & Security>Encryption>>Protected Storage>Manage Crypto Devices. In Device Manager, select NSS Internal PKCS #11 Module and click "Enable FIPS". Nothing much happened. Actually, nothing happened.

Perservering, open "about:config", and make sure as many of the settings in "ssl" filter as I can find are set according to the FF site, almost all by switching them off. Essentially, disable SSL3 and unset a number of cyphers.

However, I still see no indication that FIPS has in fact been enabled: going by the FF guide, I should see that in the Device Manager.

So, does KM 1.6.0b2 support FIPS 140-2? Or do we have a bug?

*************************

Allied to this is a question about the security padlock at lower left corner.

On a secure website, I expect to see this with an orange/amber URL bar.

But on Secure Wikipedia (https:\\en...) I see a red URL bar with a broken padlock. BTW, Secure Wikipedia has always done this.

Am I reading the padlocks correctly?

Gordon.

____________________
Gigabyte H61M-USB3-B3 r2.0, I5-2400 3.10GHz, 4GB RAM; W7HPx64 SP1, Lotus SmartSuite 9.8, K-Meleon74, Opera 12.17, IE9, Eudora 6.2, Foxit Reader 5.3.1.0606, PaintShop Pro 6.02, Avast! 7.0.1506
____________________
Sugar, greasy foods and Microsoft are dangerous to your health -- eat, drink and be merry!
____________________
Early to bed and early to rise makes a bloke crook, broke and stupid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2011 09:01PM by gordon451.

Re: Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: guenter
Date: September 26, 2011 04:22AM

1.) No bug known.

Look into the error console if You suspect an error or bug.
But I do not know how to a FIPS test. It seems to me an US government device.

K-Meleon does not have US devs besides JamesD.

BTW The FIPS manager is original unaltered Firefox 3.1 code.
Only that You can not access it in Firefox 3.1 anymore. grinning smiley

2.) Wikipedia has broken security. You read that correctly. Padlock = broken symbol.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2011 05:24AM by guenter.

Re: Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: gordon451
Date: September 26, 2011 07:09AM

Thanks for that guenter.

I think we do have a bug:
Quote
Error Console
Error: Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsIPKCS11ModuleDB.toggleFIPSMode]
Source file: chrome://pippki/content/device_manager.js
Line: 545

I'm on my way to reporting it now, will edit to leave bug#.

________________Bug 1337.

Gordon.

____________________
Gigabyte H61M-USB3-B3 r2.0, I5-2400 3.10GHz, 4GB RAM; W7HPx64 SP1, Lotus SmartSuite 9.8, K-Meleon74, Opera 12.17, IE9, Eudora 6.2, Foxit Reader 5.3.1.0606, PaintShop Pro 6.02, Avast! 7.0.1506
____________________
Sugar, greasy foods and Microsoft are dangerous to your health -- eat, drink and be merry!
____________________
Early to bed and early to rise makes a bloke crook, broke and stupid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2011 07:22AM by gordon451.

Re: Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: guenter
Date: September 26, 2011 08:11AM

Ok.

I had a look, this FIPS 140-2 manager still is accessible in recent SeaMonkeys.

But still: No idea how You'd test whether it is a Mozilla or a K-Meleon bug. sad smiley



What is this FIPS manager doing when it works?

To me it looks like a module that is for use by US officialdom.
Is it of any use to non US government users?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2011 08:44AM by guenter.

Re: Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: gordon451
Date: September 26, 2011 09:27AM

Ummmm... Some background:
Quote
Wikipedia "Transport Layer Security"
TLS 1.0 was first defined in RFC 2246 in January 1999 as an upgrade to SSL Version 3.0. As stated in the RFC, "the differences between this protocol and SSL 3.0 are not dramatic, but they are significant enough that TLS 1.0 and SSL 3.0 do not interoperate."

TLS 1.1 and 1.2 both defeat the BEAST.

You're right. FIPS="Federal Information Processing Standard", and FIPS 140-2 (which is what we're interested in) mandates (as far as I can see) a minimum of TLS 1.1 (SSL 3.2) and preferably TLS 1.2 (SSL 3.3).

Looking at the FF and Chrome implementations, enabling FIPS means disabling TLS 1.0, SSL 2 and SSL 3.

>Is it of any use to non US government users?
Yes. They MUST use it. But we can get the benefit of client-side mandated security.

Downside is that FIPS will break most websites that don't have TLS 1.1 or 1.2 -- but we can toggle provided we can get it to work in the first place.

Gordon.

____________________
Gigabyte H61M-USB3-B3 r2.0, I5-2400 3.10GHz, 4GB RAM; W7HPx64 SP1, Lotus SmartSuite 9.8, K-Meleon74, Opera 12.17, IE9, Eudora 6.2, Foxit Reader 5.3.1.0606, PaintShop Pro 6.02, Avast! 7.0.1506
____________________
Sugar, greasy foods and Microsoft are dangerous to your health -- eat, drink and be merry!
____________________
Early to bed and early to rise makes a bloke crook, broke and stupid.

Re: Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: guenter
Date: September 26, 2011 03:35PM

Quote
gordon451
Ummmm... Some background:
Quote
Wikipedia "Transport Layer Security"
TLS 1.0 was first defined in RFC 2246 in January 1999 as an upgrade to SSL Version 3.0. As stated in the RFC, "the differences between this protocol and SSL 3.0 are not dramatic, but they are significant enough that TLS 1.0 and SSL 3.0 do not interoperate."

TLS 1.1 and 1.2 both defeat the BEAST.

You're right. FIPS="Federal Information Processing Standard", and FIPS 140-2 (which is what we're interested in) mandates (as far as I can see) a minimum of TLS 1.1 (SSL 3.2) and preferably TLS 1.2 (SSL 3.3).

Looking at the FF and Chrome implementations, enabling FIPS means disabling TLS 1.0, SSL 2 and SSL 3.

>Is it of any use to non US government users?
Yes. They MUST use it. But we can get the benefit of client-side mandated security.

Downside is that FIPS will break most websites that don't have TLS 1.1 or 1.2 -- but we can toggle provided we can get it to work in the first place.

1.) I read Wikipedia already.

2.) To which FF/SM implementation of TLS 1.1 or better are You referring?

Am I overlooking something on the two quoted linked pages?

TLS 1.1: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565047
TLS 1.2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480514

3.) So FIPS 140-2 will break 99% or so of non US government sites currently?

Net Result: We get no protection instead of week protection? sad smiley

That is no improvement since the BEAST exploit needs 20-30 minutes to break TLS 1.0 protected sessions if I understand the reports about the proof of concept right.

BTW The home-page of my bank for example has a time out after 12 minutes inertia.

Apart from that, who'd use only a single channel for a save money transaction.
I get a 6 digit pin/transaction number send to my cell phone.

So a ptential attacker must compromise in a coordinated attack my PC and my cellphone security at the same time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2011 04:14PM by guenter.

Re: Enabling FIPS 140-2
Posted by: gordon451
Date: September 26, 2011 09:13PM

Quote

BTW The home-page of my bank for example has a time out after 12 minutes inertia.
We'll leave good banking practice out of this please tongue sticking out smiley I'm in Australia and we're so pleased we've finally got EMV chips on our credit cards cool smiley -- and even then we still have the magnetic strips! confused smiley

>2.) To which FF/SM implementation of TLS 1.1 or better are You referring?
I was probably thinking of HSTS rather than TLS... FF4 and Chrome4 both are suppposed to have HSTS, which implies TLS 1.1+. Problem is, Chrome's implementation appears to be buggy.

ForceTLS has been released for Chrome but it's now called Fidelio.

>3.) So FIPS 140-2 will break 99% or so of non US government sites currently?
Almost certainly. BUT. In Bug #565047 Adam Rak says "...every secure http connection I use is potentially compromised...".

>Net Result: We get no protection instead of week protection? sad smiley
Too many people are sadly pointing out that in nearly 10 years, the world of web servers has sat on its hands doing very little because their profits might be eroded. We can't rely on them any further. Not everything can be done in the browser.

Gotta go. The keyboard is not a good pillow.

Gordon.

____________________
Gigabyte H61M-USB3-B3 r2.0, I5-2400 3.10GHz, 4GB RAM; W7HPx64 SP1, Lotus SmartSuite 9.8, K-Meleon74, Opera 12.17, IE9, Eudora 6.2, Foxit Reader 5.3.1.0606, PaintShop Pro 6.02, Avast! 7.0.1506
____________________
Sugar, greasy foods and Microsoft are dangerous to your health -- eat, drink and be merry!
____________________
Early to bed and early to rise makes a bloke crook, broke and stupid.

K-Meleon forum is powered by Phorum.